DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims filed on January 15th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-7, 9- 20, and 22- 25 are pending in the application. The amendments to claims 3, 8-9, and 16- 17 overcome the previous claim objections, and the amendment to claims 8, 13, and 20 overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. The amendment to the specification overcomes the previous specification objection.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "all of the bends of the plurality of appendages" in Lines 2- 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation is herein interpreted as “the plurality of appendages comprising bends, wherein all of the bends of the plurality of appendages” or “the plurality of appendages exhibit a concave curvature relative to the central longitudinal axis”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “a recess, notch, or score that extends through a majority of each said leg”, it is unclear what is meant by this limitation, whether the recess, notch, or score extends lengthwise along a majority of each said leg, or whether the recess, notch, or score extends through a majority of a width of each said leg. For purposes of examination, this limitation is herein interpreted as wherein the recess, notch, or score extends through a majority of a width of each said leg.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10-12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Carr et al. (WO 2007/106378) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments; specifically Carr does not teach the weakened break point including a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of said legs when said legs are disposed in the patient’s blood conveying vessel portion.
The rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Carr et al. (WO 2007/106378) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2016/0166371) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments; specifically Carr does not teach the weakened break point including a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of said legs when said legs are disposed in the patient’s blood conveying vessel portion.
The rejection of claims 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Carr et al. (WO 2007/106378) in view of Vale et al. (US 2002/0107541) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments; specifically Carr does not teach the weakened break point including a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of said legs when said legs are disposed in the patient’s blood conveying vessel portion.
The rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Carr et al. (WO 2007/106378) in view of Vale et al. (US 2002/0107541) in further view of Johnson et al. (US 2016/0166371) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments; specifically Carr does not teach the weakened break point including a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of said legs when said legs are disposed in the patient’s blood conveying vessel portion.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 10- 12, 14, 18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Carr et al. (WO 2007/106378) in view of Binkert (US 9,017,363).
Regarding claim 1, Carr (Carr et al.) teaches a vascular implant (10)(Figs. 1- 3A)(abstract), comprising: a polymeric filter body (18)(Paragraph 0026) having a central longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and configured to be placed in a patient’s blood conveying vessel portion (Paragraph 0032); said filter body having a head and an outer periphery (see annotated Fig. 2 below); multiple filter legs (see annotated Fig. 2 below, some of the legs 16) extending both radially and longitudinally from said head (Paragraph 0030); each said leg tapering between said axis and said outer periphery (see annotated Fig. 2 below)(Paragraph 0033); each leg having a proximal end portion next to said head and a distal portion with an anchor (tip section 22) for engaging a vessel wall (Paragraphs 0029 and 0033); a weakened break point on one or more of said legs; and wherein a majority of the length of each said leg is in between the weakened break point and the anchor (see annotated Fig. 2 below)(Carr teaches in Paragraph 0029 that a weakening procedure can be performed on “areas of the filter other than the tip section of an appendage”, therefore the weakening procedure can be performed on a part of the proximal section of the appendage (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and the majority of the length of each leg can be between the weakened break point and the anchor.).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
591
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
601
805
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify a part of the proximal end portion of each leg to have a weakened break point (see annotated Fig. 2 above). Carr discloses that a section of one of the legs can be weakened, that doing so allows for that section to bend, and that other areas of the filter can have a weakening procedure performed (Paragraph 0029). Thus, having a weakened break point be at a part of the proximal end portion of each leg and therefore having a majority of the length of each leg be between the weakened break point and the anchor would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp”. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Carr does not teach wherein the weakened break point including a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of said legs when said legs are disposed in the patient’s blood conveying vessel portion.
Binkert teaches a similar vascular implant (filter unit 3)(Figs. )(abstract) comprising a filter body (body 2, connecting member 15) having multiple filter legs (cones 6, 7) and a part of the filter body (connecting member 15) having a weakened break point (Column 4, Lines 60- 62), the weakened break point including a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of the filter body when the filter is disposed in the patient’s blood conveying vessel portion (Column 5, Lines 14- 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the weakened break point as taught by Carr to include a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of the filter body such as the legs as taught by Binkert, since Binkert teaches that having the biodegradable material for the weakened break point and the filter body will prevent the need for further intervention (Column 5, Lines 26- 36).
Regarding claim 4, Carr and Binkert makes obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
Carr further teaches wherein the head is positioned at said central longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
601
805
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
Carr further teaches wherein each said leg tapers from a minimum thickness to a maximum thickness (see annotated Fig. 3A below)(Carr teaches in Paragraph 0031 that the legs can have a circular cross section. Therefore, with the tapering of each leg, the thickness would also taper from a minimum thickness to a maximum thickness.).
PNG
media_image5.png
358
673
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
Carr further teaches wherein said weakened break point is an indentation (Carr teaches in Paragraph 0033 that the weakening procedure performed can be through grooving, therefore forming an indentation where the weakened break point is.).
Regarding claim 7, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
Carr further teaches wherein said weakened break point is a score (Carr teaches in Paragraph 0033 that the weakening procedure performed can be through grooving, therefore forming a score where the weakened break point is.).
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
Carr further teaches wherein said head is ring shaped (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
601
805
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
Carr further teaches wherein the filter body and legs define a vena cava filter (Paragraph 0002 and 0006).
Regarding claim 12, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
Carr further teaches wherein the filter body and legs define an occlusion device (In Paragraph 0031, Carr teaches that the device “captures relatively larger emboli” within a blood vessel. Therefore the device acts as an occlusion device when placed within the vessel.).
Regarding claim 18, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
Carr further teaches wherein at least some of said anchors are hook shaped (Paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 22, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
As discussed above, Carr teaches in Paragraph 0029 that a weakening procedure can be performed on “areas of the filter other than the tip section of an appendage”, therefore the weakening procedure can be performed on a part of the proximal section of the appendage (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and the majority of the length of each leg can be between the weakened break point and the anchor or alternatively, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify a part of the proximal end portion of each leg to have a weakened break point (see annotated Fig. 2 above). Carr discloses that a section of one of the legs can be weakened, that doing so allows for that section to bend, and that other areas of the filter can have a weakening procedure performed (Paragraph 0029). Thus, having a weakened break point be at a part of the proximal end portion of each leg and therefore having a majority of the length of each leg be between the weakened break point and the anchor would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp”. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
PNG
media_image3.png
601
805
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Carr further teaches wherein a portion of the length of each said leg is in between the weakened break point and the head (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
433
608
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr et al. (WO 2007/106378) in view of Binkert (US 9,017,363), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Johnson et al. (US 2016/0166371).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein said filter body and legs are 3D printed or wherein the body and legs are 3D printed of a bioresorbable material.
Johnson (Johnson et al.) teaches a vascular implant (89)(Fig. 1L- 1J), comprising: a filter body (support members 90, 91, 92) configured to be placed in a patient’s blood conveying vessel portion (abstract) and a plurality of anchors (95), wherein the filter body and the anchors are 3D printed (Paragraph 0091) of a bioresorbable material (Paragraphs 0095 and 0097).
It would have been obvious to modify the filter body and the legs as taught by the combination to be 3D printed and made of a bioresorbable material as taught by Johnson, since Johnson teaches that 3D printing “is advantageous because the final shape and structure is directly formed without the need to shape, bend, or attached anything to the structure” (Paragraph 0092) which reduces stresses and prevents the weakening of the structure and Carr teaches that the implant can be made of a bioresorbable material (Paragraph 0026).
Claim(s) 9, 13, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr et al. (WO 2007/106378) in view of Binkert (US 9,017,363) and in view of Vale et al. (US 2002/0107541).
Regarding claim 9, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
Carr does not teach wherein said polymeric body is too soft to be machined or has a durometer reading of between 35 Shore A and 75 Shore D.
Vale (Vale et al.) teaches a device (Fig. 19) for use within the vasculature (abstract), with a filter body (2) with a durometer reading between 60 Shore D and 70 Shore A (Paragraph 0191).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the polymeric body to have a durometer reading between 60 Shore D and 70 Shore A, since Vale teaches that a polymer can have this durometer reading (Vale, Paragraph 0191), and Carr teaches that the polymeric body can be made of a suitable biocompatible material (Carr, Paragraph 0026).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the range as taught by the combination to be between 35 Shore A and 75 Shore D, since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a primae facie case of obviousness exists”. (MPEP 2144.05)(In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding the polymeric body being too soft to be machined, since the polymeric body of the combination has the same durometer reading as set forth by the claim limitation, it would have the same properties and therefore be too soft to be machined.
Regarding claim 13, Carr teaches a vascular implant (10)(Figs. 1- 3A)(abstract), comprising: a filter body (18)(Paragraph 0026) having a central longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and configured to be placed in a patient’s blood conveying vessel portion (Paragraph 0032); said filter body having a head and an outer periphery (see annotated Fig. 2 below); multiple filter legs (see annotated Fig. 2 below, some of the legs 16) extending both radially and longitudinally from said head (Paragraph 0030); each leg having a proximal end portion next to said head and a distal portion with an anchor for engaging a vessel wall (see annotated Fig. 2 below)(Paragraphs 0029 and 0033); a weakened break point on one or more of said legs; and wherein a majority of the length of each said leg is in between the weakened break point and the anchor (see annotated Fig. 2 below)(Carr teaches in Paragraph 0029 that a weakening procedure can be performed on “areas of the filter other than the tip section of an appendage”, therefore the weakening procedure can be performed on a part of the proximal section of the appendage (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and the majority of the length of each leg can be between the weakened break point and the anchor.).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
591
859
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
601
805
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify a part of the proximal end portion of each leg to have a weakened break point. Carr discloses that a section of one of the legs can be weakened, that doing so allows for that section to bend, and that other areas of the filter can have a weakening procedure performed (Paragraph 0029). Thus, having a weakened break point be at a part of the proximal end portion of each leg and therefore having a majority of the length of each leg be between the weakened break point and the anchor would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp”. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Carr does not teach wherein the weakened break point including a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of said legs when said legs are disposed in the patient’s blood conveying vessel portion.
Binkert teaches a similar vascular implant (filter unit 3)(Figs. )(abstract) comprising a filter body (body 2, connecting member 15) having multiple filter legs (cones 6, 7) and a part of the filter body (connecting member 15) having a weakened break point (Column 4, Lines 60- 62), the weakened break point including a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of the filter body when the filter is disposed in the patient’s blood conveying vessel portion (Column 5, Lines 14- 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the weakened break point as taught by Carr to include a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of the filter body such as the legs as taught by Binkert, since Binkert teaches that having the biodegradable material for the weakened break point and the filter body will prevent the need for further intervention (Column 5, Lines 26- 36).
The combination does not teach wherein the filter body is of a material that has a durometer reading of between 35 Shore A and 75 Shore D.
Vale (Vale et al.) teaches a device (Fig. 19) for use within the vasculature (abstract), with a filter body (2) with a durometer reading between 60 Shore D and 70 Shore A (Paragraph 0191).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the polymeric body to have a durometer reading between 60 Shore D and 70 Shore A, since Vale teaches that a polymer can have this durometer reading (Vale, Paragraph 0191), and Carr teaches that the polymeric body can be made of a suitable biocompatible material (Carr, Paragraph 0026).
The combination does not teach wherein the filter body is of a material that has a durometer reading of between 35 Shore A and 75 Shore D.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the range as taught by the combination to be between 35 Shore A and 75 Shore D, since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a primae facie case of obviousness exists”. (MPEP 2144.05)(In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding the polymeric body being too soft to be machined, since the polymeric body of the combination has the same durometer reading as set forth by the claim limitation, it would have the same properties and therefore be too soft to be machined.
Regarding claim 19, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
Carr further teaches wherein at least some of said anchors are hook shaped (Paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 20, Carr teaches a vascular implant (10)(Figs. 1- 3A)(abstract), comprising: a filter body (18)(Paragraph 0026) having a central longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and configured to be placed in a patient’s blood conveying vessel portion (Paragraph 0032); said filter body having a head in the form of an annular member with a central opening and an outer periphery (see annotated Fig. 2 below); multiple filter legs (see annotated Fig. 2 below, some of the legs16) extending both radially and longitudinally from said head (Paragraph 0030); each leg having a proximal end portion that connects said annular member, and a distal end portion; and a weakened break point on the proximal end portion of one or more of said legs (see annotated Fig. 2 below)(Carr teaches in Paragraph 0029 that a weakening procedure can be performed on “areas of the filter other than the tip section of an appendage”, therefore the weakening procedure can be performed on a part of the proximal section of the appendage (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and the majority of the length of each leg can be between the weakened break point and the anchor.).
PNG
media_image9.png
576
764
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
454
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify a part of the proximal end portion of each leg to have a weakened break point. Carr discloses that a section of one of the legs can be weakened, that doing so allows for that section to bend, and that other areas of the filter can have a weakening procedure performed (Paragraph 0029). Thus, having a weakened break point be at a part of the proximal end portion of each leg would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp”. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Carr does not teach wherein the weakened break point including a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of said legs when said legs are disposed in the patient’s blood conveying vessel portion.
Binkert teaches a similar vascular implant (filter unit 3)(Figs. )(abstract) comprising a filter body (body 2, connecting member 15) having multiple filter legs (cones 6, 7) and a part of the filter body (connecting member 15) having a weakened break point (Column 4, Lines 60- 62), the weakened break point including a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of the filter body when the filter is disposed in the patient’s blood conveying vessel portion (Column 5, Lines 14- 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the weakened break point as taught by Carr to include a material that breaks down and fails before another portion of the filter body such as the legs as taught by Binkert, since Binkert teaches that having the biodegradable material for the weakened break point and the filter body will prevent the need for further intervention (Column 5, Lines 26- 36).
The combination does not teach wherein the filter body has a durometer reading of between 35 Shore A and 75 Shore D.
Vale (Vale et al.) teaches a device (Fig. 19) for use within the vasculature (abstract), with a filter body (2) with a durometer reading between 60 Shore D and 70 Shore A (Paragraph 0191).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the polymeric body to have a durometer reading between 60 Shore D and 70 Shore A, since Vale teaches that a polymer can have this durometer reading (Vale, Paragraph 0191), and Carr teaches that the polymeric body can be made of a suitable biocompatible material (Carr, Paragraph 0026).
The combination does not teach wherein the filter body has a durometer reading of between 35 Shore A and 75 Shore D.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the range as taught by the combination to be between 35 Shore A and 75 Shore D, since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a primae facie case of obviousness exists”. (MPEP 2144.05)(In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding the polymeric body being too soft to be machined, since the polymeric body of the combination has the same durometer reading as set forth by the claim limitation, it would have the same properties and therefore be too soft to be machined.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr et al. (WO 2007/106378) in view of Binkert (US 9,017,363) and in view of Vale et al. (US 2002/0107541), as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Johnson et al. (US 2016/0166371).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Carr, Binkert and Vale make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein said filter body and legs are 3D printed or wherein the body and legs are 3D printed of a bioresorbable material.
Johnson (Johnson et al.) teaches a vascular implant (89)(Fig. 1L- 1J), comprising: a filter body (support members 90, 91, 92) configured to be placed in a patient’s blood conveying vessel portion (abstract) and a plurality of anchors (95), wherein the filter body and the anchors are 3D printed (Paragraph 0091) of a bioresorbable material (Paragraphs 0095 and 0097).
It would have been obvious to modify the filter body and the legs as taught by the combination to be 3D printed and made of a bioresorbable material as taught by Johnson, since Johnson teaches that 3D printing “is advantageous because the final shape and structure is directly formed without the need to shape, bend, or attached anything to the structure” (Paragraph 0092) which reduces stresses and prevents the weakening of the structure and Carr teaches that the implant can be made of a bioresorbable material (Paragraph 0026).
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Carr et al. (WO 2007/106378) in view of Binkert (US 9,017,363), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Abbate (US 2011/0125091).
Regarding claim 23, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein at least one of the multiple filter legs includes an upper portion extending from the head, the upper portion exhibiting a concave curvature relative to the central longitudinal axis
Abbate teaches a similar device (100)(Figs. 1A and 1B) for insertion into the body and contact with tissue (abstract and Paragraph 0005), the device comprising a head (hub 102) and multiple filter legs (104)(Paragraph 0030), wherein the multiple filter legs includes an upper portion extending from the head, the upper portion exhibiting a concave curvature relative to the central longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 1B below)(Paragraph 0036).
PNG
media_image10.png
447
647
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper portion of the multiple filter legs of the combination to exhibit a concave curvature as taught by Abbate, since a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, applicant has not shown unexpected results gleaming from having the claimed shape.
Regarding claim 24, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
Carr further teaches a plurality of appendages distinct and separate from the multiple filter legs (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image11.png
454
666
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The combination does not teach wherein the plurality of appendages comprise a bend, wherein all of the bends of the plurality of appendages exhibit a concave curvature relative to the central longitudinal axis.
Abbate teaches a similar device (Fig. 8C) for insertion into the body and contact with tissue (abstract) comprising multiple filter legs (every other leg 810), and a plurality of appendages (every other leg 810), wherein the plurality of appendages comprise a bend (812), wherein all of the bends of the plurality of appendages exhibit a concave curvature relative to the central longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 8C below)(Paragraph 0055).
PNG
media_image12.png
348
435
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of appendages of the combination to exhibit a concave curvature as taught by Abbate, since a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, applicant has not shown unexpected results gleaming from having the claimed shape.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Carr et al. (WO 2007/106378) in view of Binkert (US 9,017,363), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of DiMatteo (US 6,217,600).
Regarding claim 25, Carr and Binkert make obvious the vascular implant as discussed above.
The combination does not teach wherein said weakened break point is a recess, notch, or score that extends through a majority of a width of each said leg.
DiMatteo teaches a similar filter (20)(abstract, Column 3, Lines 61- 65)(Figs. 1 and 3) comprising a filter body (22, 24) with multiple filter legs (struts 24), each filter leg having a weakened break point (40)(Column 4, Lines 51- 65 and Column 6, Lines 13- 18), wherein said weakened break point is a notch that extends through a majority of the width of each said leg (see annotated Fig. 3 below)(Column 4, Lines 51- 65).
PNG
media_image13.png
566
599
media_image13.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the weakened break point to be a notch that extends through a majority of the width of each leg as taught by DiMatteo for the purpose of providing a break point for the filter (Carr, Paragraph 0029; DiMatteo, Column 6, Lines 13- 18). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one weakened break point for another because both break points are disclosed as equivalent structures for disconnecting an anchoring point from a filter (Carr, Paragraph 0029; DiMatteo, Column 6, Lines 13- 18) and substitution of one for the other would have resulted in the predictable result of separating the filter from the anchoring point. KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments filed January 15th, 2026 with respect to the 102/103 rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10-12, and 18 over Carr et al. (WO 2007/106378), the 103 rejection of claims 2 and 3 over Carr in view of Johnson et al. (US 2016/0166371), the 103 rejection of claims 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 over Carr in view of Vale et al. (US 2002/0107541), the 103 rejection of claims 15 and 16 over Carr in view of Vale in further view of Johnson et al. (US 2016/0166371), the arguments have been fully considered but are moot, since, as discussed above, the previous prior art rejections were withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. However, it is noted that Carr, Johnson, and Vale are still relied upon for limitations not argued.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the claim objection for claim 14, this argument is not convincing. Claim 14 depends from claim 1 within the claims, not claim 13, and it has language that fails to further limit when compared to claim 10, which also depends from claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY R. RIVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272- 4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /TAN-UYEN T HO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights